231 Conn.App. 404
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- The parties, Jennifer R. Jacob-Dick and Charles H. Dick, divorced in 2015 with a separation agreement obligating each to pay 50% of their children's unreimbursed health care expenses.
- In October 2022, Jacob-Dick (plaintiff) filed a postjudgment contempt motion, alleging Dick (defendant) failed to pay $858.50 in specified child health care costs.
- Dick sent a check for $858.50 to Jacob-Dick over a week before the contempt hearing in April 2023, covering all expenses listed in her motion.
- At hearing, plaintiff admitted receiving the payment but had not cashed the check because she preferred to proceed with the hearing; she also raised new, unspecified expenses not part of the original motion.
- The trial court found Dick in contempt, found a $1,377.75 arrearage (including new expenses), and ordered Dick incarcerated until payment was made.
- Dick appealed, contesting both the finding of contempt and the nature of the sanction imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was contempt proper given payment before hearing? | Dick's history shows bad faith and delay; past noncompliance justifies contempt. | All specified expenses in the motion were paid before the hearing—no willful violation. | Contempt finding was an abuse of discretion; Dick's conduct not willful noncompliance. |
| Can contempt include newly raised, unspecified expenses? | Additional owed health expenses should count toward contempt. | Only expenses listed in the motion and with proper notice may be considered. | Contempt cannot be based on unpled, unspecified expenses; due process was violated. |
| Was the sanction imposed criminal or civil contempt? | N/A (unspecified in summary). | Sanction was improper and criminal as it involved incarceration. | The incarceration order was civil, not criminal, because it was conditional and purgeable by payment. |
| Did the plaintiff’s motion meet procedural requirements? | Sought enforcement without specifying all order language or expenses. | Plaintiff's motion lacked necessary specificity under court rules. | Plaintiff failed to comply with the specificity requirements of Practice Book § 25-27; court acted improperly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Puff v. Puff, 334 Conn. 341 (Conn. 2020) (sets standard for finding contempt—must prove willful violation by clear and convincing evidence)
- Connolly v. Connolly, 191 Conn. 468 (Conn. 1983) (payment before hearing negates willful disobedience for contempt)
- Papa v. New Haven Federation of Teachers, 186 Conn. 725 (Conn. 1982) (distinguishes between civil and criminal contempt sanctions)
- Mays v. Mays, 193 Conn. 261 (Conn. 1984) (imprisonment until purgeable amount is paid is a civil, not criminal, sanction)
- New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, 291 Conn. 489 (Conn. 2009) (due process requires specificity and notice in contempt motions)